Here’s what Dee Dee Myers had to say about the primary season and expectations for men v. women:

As Bud White had in his excellent piece, “The Sexism Continues,” when a sitting US Senator is dismissed by major cable networks by headlines like, “(Persident) Clinton To Help Wife Get Job” as MSNBC had, there is no longer even an attempt to disguise it. This woman has more accomplishments in a year than many people do their entire lives, and certainly has more than the President (S)Elect, but her husband is going to help her get a job? She already HAS one, you misogynistic MSNBC *&@#$#! You can just bite me. This woman was a star even before she met Bill Clinton, thank you so much, or did you forget she was the first student EVER to give the address at Wellesley for her graduating class?? (Oh - and here’s a little heads up - you actually KNOW something about what SHE did in college. How about your man crush, Obama? What the hell do you know about his time at Occidental or Columbia, huh??? Tools.) Her husband is going to help her get a job? Please.

Just as a little reminder of the esteem with which GROWN UPS are capable of holding Senator Clinton, here she is as the Guest of Honor at the Marine Corps Sunset Parade:

Do you think she was the guest of honor because of her husband, or because as a US Senator, she has worked tirelessly for our men and women in uniform, especially veterans? Yeah. Her work, not who her husband is. Jagoffs.

Well, I was wrong. I guess Obama did unite some people after all. Men against women. Again. Out in the open, with no remorse. From our “news” channels. Great. What a uniter.

The headline on the MSN homepage (via MSNBC) declares, “Dem sources: Clinton to help wife get State job.”

This headline refers to the fact that President Clinton is disclosing his financial records and those of his charitable work. But the sexist opportunity was too good for MSNBC to pass up. President Clinton is not helping his wife “get a job,” he’s merely presenting financial documents to Obama’s transition team. Ostensibly, all potential cabinet members and their spouses are also going through this process now. The big difference, however, is that the Obama team made Clinton’s financial records a campaign issue.

Can you imagine the headline turned the other way? I don’t recall seeing, “Liddy Dole to help husband get job” or “Mary Matalin to help James Carville get job.”

There are major problems with the MSNBC headline. First, of course, it presupposes that Senator Clinton wants the job. There’s a report today in the New York Times that she’s “hesitant” to give up the independence of her senate seat. But of course independence is what it’s all about.

A key element of Obama Sexism in this recent campaign was the constantly pushed narrative that Hillary was dependent on President Clinton for her senate seat and her presidential campaign. Chris Matthews infamously said “on ‘Morning Joe’ [that] the reason Hillary Clinton won her New York Senate seat and is a front-runner in the presidential race is because Bill Clinton ‘messed around.’”

And who can forget Greg Craig of the Obama campaign? A former Clinton classmate and friend, when discussing Hillary’s important role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland, claimed that Hillary Clinton was an appendage to her husband and only met with “the women”:

She traveled to Ireland with her husband and met with the women, and the women, of course, were heroic in their work for peace. But she can’t take credit for bringing the women together. They were the courageous ones that did it themselves. What she said was, “It’s a good thing you’re doing it. We’re all for you. I hope you’re successful.” That’s not instrumental. That’s not bringing peace to Ireland.

Of course Hillary never claimed to have brought peace to Northern Ireland. The Obama Sexism trope from Craig is even more glaring when you ask, What foreign policy credentials did Obama have? Hillary was President Clinton’s closest adviser and she was assigned many important tasks in his administration. But Craig, like MSNBC now, perpetuates Obama Sexism in order to diminish Hillary Clinton.

Oh, yes:

In his first television interview since the election, Mr Obama told CBS he would pull troops out of Iraq, shore up Afghanistan, and close Guantanamo Bay.

“I’m going to make sure that we don’t torture,” he said of the prison camp.

Well, good. No one should torture. That concept has been fully established, so that isn’t exactly groundbreaking. McCain would have done the same thing with Gitmo, by the way. But to spy on your own citizenry through FISA is A-Okay, even though it violates the US Constitution. Clearly, he has no problems with THAT since he VOTED for it.

Anywho, I’m no authority on morality - oh, wait a minute - yes I am! Yep, majoring in Ethics (Philosophy) as well as five years of graduate work in Ethics and theology, an internship, a residency to become a minister, and actual work as a minister as well as an honest-to-goodness moral upbringing really comes in handy sometimes! This would be just such a time, I think.

So, for Obama to make this claim to restore our “moral stature” is just laughable. I mean, really - to claim one wants to “rebuild the country’s moral stature” implies one has a MORAL base from which to do that work. I have seen blessed little evidence of that from Obama in the past two years. Heck, even longer than that, if you include how he got into the IL Senate - by screwing over the very woman (Alice Palmer) who got him into politics in the FIRST place. Well, that just goes to prove the point - he has had a “morality” problem for a while, it would seem.

There is no way I can touch on everything he has done during this entire election season, but one has to begin somewhere:

Tainting President Bill and Senator Hillary Clinton as racists. I am pretty sure that’s a violation of one of the BIG TEN: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” And that is just the beginning of the the lies Obama spread against Hillary Clinton over the past two years, though that is not just career damaging, but psychologically damaging. No matter HOW much one might know a smear is false, something of that magnitude has an effect, especially when one has spent one’s entire adult life fighting against that very cause? Yes, it is laughable, but it also tarnished them both tremendously. Yeah, what a stand-up guy. That is just ONE of the areas in which he went far beyond standard election campaigning. This false, yet lingering, attack on both of their CHARACTERS, using such a profound issue in this country, was so, so far beyond the pale of decency. Yet, not only did he use it, but he used it time and time again, then extending it to ALL Americans who did not support him. That is not the least bit “moral.”

Nor is it MORAL to demean and belittle women. To treat them as less than, as less worthy, as not on the same level, is not exactly reflective of good character. And to diminish a woman’s accomplishments all the while stealing her work and claiming it for one’s own is not ethical in any way, shape, or form.

Then there is the vast amount of caucus fraud perpetrated by Obama’s minions from Washington State to Texas. Texas alone with its 2,000+ documented complaints of caucus fraud - from intimidation, bullying, and threats, to physically being blocked out of the process. There is absolutely no way that the level of caucus fraud seen this year was a fluke, that it was not organized by the Obama campaign itself (does the term, “Obama Youth Camp” mean anything to you?). The caucus fraud that occurred was the ONLY reason Obama was even close to Hillary Clinton, who won all of the big states besides Obama’s own.

Which leads me to this the whole delegate issue. Even with Obama’s cheating at the caucuses, he and Clinton would have been only four votes apart except for one thing: taking lawfully cast, certified votes from Clinton and giving them to Obama, which he seemed to think was “fair.”

Now, I realize knowing the law does not a lawful, ethical, or moral person make. But honestly, wouldn’t one HOPE that the president-elect had any ONE of those characteristics? Is that really too much to ask? Evidently…

Ahem. And then there is ACORN. Oh, holy cow - where to even START on ACORN? Their voter registration fraud was OFF THE CHARTS this year. It couldn’t POSSIBLY have had anything to do with Obama paying them over $800,000, could it? Or that Obama actually WORKED for ACORN? Suffice it to say, ACORN was a boon to Obama, especially if voter fraud didn’t cross his moral barometer. Clearly, since he did not speak out against them, it did not seem to prick his conscience at all. Not even ACORN being investigated in sixteen states stirred him to say something against his unofficial election arm.

And how about Obama’s lack of oversight on Afghanistan? Ho can anyone claim a moral high ground when he has held NOT ONE MEETING of the Committee that oversees Afghanistan, Europe, and NATO? Do you know that Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the entire world? That families in Afghanistan are selling their CHILDREN, both boys and girls (though the girls are often “sold” as BRIDES to pay off a debt) to be able to survive?? Where has Obama been? How he can he make ANY claims to “moral stature” when he has lifted NOT ONE FINGER for Afghanistan? Not one. In fact, he USED Afghanistan as a campaign issue, which makes his inaction even worse in terms of his own character. He used them, and did absolutely nothing FOR them. Not one damn thing.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. Threatening, bullying, cheating, and lying have been the hallmarks of Obama’s campaign this year, and HE is going to be the one to restore our moral stature in the world? Uh, yeah, no. He does not have the moral fortitude himself to pull that off. Not even close. Looks like four more years of Bush after all (like I’ve been sayin’…).

But, what I am wondering, is WHY Obama is considering her for Secretary of State. Obama spent the primary season telling us over and over again that Hillary does not have foreign policy experience. So, why would he consider her for a role that is all about foreign policy?

“I hope people start asking, what exactly is this foreign experience that she’s claiming? I know she talks about visiting 80 countries. However it’s not clear…was she negotiating treaties or agreements, or was she handling crises during this period of time?” Obama asked.

So, is Obama just leaking this story, to pretend he is considering her, or is he seriously considering her? And if he is seriously considering Hillary, then why? Why would he put someone in that position that did nothing more than throw tea parties?

“It’s that experience, that understanding, not just of what world leaders I went and talked to in the ambassador’s house I had tea with, but understanding the lives of the people like my grandmother who lives in a tiny hut in Africa,” he said.

“When Senator Clinton brags ‘I’ve met leaders from eighty countries’ — I know what those trips are like! I’ve been on them. You go from the airport to the embassy. There’s a group of children who do native dance. You meet with the CIA station chief and the embassy and they give you a briefing. You go take a tour of a plant that [with] the assistance of USAID has started something. And then — you go.”

Obama also claimed to have far more foreign policy experience than Clinton or McCain, because he lived in Indonesia when he was 6-10 years old, and vacationed for three weeks in Pakistan when he was in college.

“You do that in eighty countries,” Obama said, “You don’t know those eighty countries. So when I speak about having lived in Indonesia for four years, having family that is impoverished in small villages in Africa –knowing the leaders is not important — what I know is the people…I traveled to Pakistan when I was in college — I knew what Sunni and Shia was [sic] before I joined the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.”

Obama even went so far as to have his team draft a memo, slamming Hillary on her foreign policy. His strongest punch was her support of the Iraq war. (although, it doesn’t seem to bother him that Biden did, too.)

The memo, “Senator Clinton’s claim to be experienced in foreign policy: Just words?” hits Hillary on every claim she makes to have foreign policy experience. You can read the entire memo here.

The memo finishes, “And Barack Obama does not use false charges and exaggerated claims to play politics with national security.”

So, I ask, why would he choose Hillary as SoS and take such *risks* with national security?

Is he seriously considering naming Hillary, the former First Lady, who just poured tea and watched a few native dances, as Secretary of State?

“Supporters of rival Barack Obama argued that the former first lady’s trips abroad hardly constituted a practice run for managing global crises.”She was never asked to do the heavy lifting” when meeting with foreign leaders, said Susan Rice, who was an assistant secretary of state in the Clinton administration and is now advising Obama. “She wasn’t asked to move the mountain or deliver a harsh message or a veiled threat. It was all gentle prodding or constructive reinforcement. And it would not have been appropriate for her to do the heavy lifting.”

Is this possibly his *worst hire yet* or did he not really mean anything he said about her during the primary?

She either has foreign policy experience or she doesn’t. So, which is it?

(for the record, I think she is very qualified for the job. It is Obama who apparently doesn’t think she is qualified…at least he didn’t a couple of months ago.)

That being said, our military has performed as well as could be expected under very dangerous circumstances. We have lost brave people, courageous people, to this war. Many of our service people have physical disabilities as a result of being there, and many more have psychological trauma that affects them, their families, and their friends. Our military has given a great deal. They deserve our appreciation, our support, and our respect for what they have done in service to our country.

And, since we are there, how we leave is important. We can’t just pull out all of our troops willy nilly. That would be tremendously irresponsible of us, in terms of the Iraqis who will be left behind without sufficient infrastructure in place, and it will diminish the efforts of our military, and the memory of those who paid the ultimate price.

Below are two videos of two different Iraqi war veterans, both of whom endorse McCain. The first is a sergeant who gave his Purple Heart to McCain:

To say the least, these are two very powerful pieces from those who know first-hand what our being in Iraq means. While I know there are others in the military who do not support McCain, their reasons for doing so speak for themselves.

Finally, there was the following endorsement in my local paper. Now, I have to say, I was stunned. SC is a red state, to be sure, but the city from which this paper comes is not. You could have knocked me over with a feather when I saw their endorsement of John McCain in this editorial: John McCain For President because they, like many in the MSM, have printed primarily pro-Obama, negative or not-so-pro-McCain pieces. But they nailed it with McCain:

John McCain has served our nation with extraordinary distinction for more than 40 years. But his best service should be yet to come. He understands where America has been, where it is today, and where it must go to fulfill its potential. His proven courage, experience, knowledge, judgment and capacity for working across party lines make him the best choice for the presidency on Tuesday.

Mr. McCain’s habit of delivering blunt “straight talk” represents a refreshing departure from modern political spin. For a quarter century in the U.S. House (1983-87) and Senate (1987-now), the Arizona Republican has applied sound principles of fiscal responsibility and strong national defense on a case-by-case basis.

The self-proclaimed “maverick” has dared to be his own man by taking unpopular positions on tough topics that sent most politicians retreating toward pandering generalizations. He repeatedly, and accurately, points out that he will win no “Miss Congeniality” awards from fellow federal lawmakers — due in large part to his relentless opposition to wasteful “pork” spending.

He has drawn the ire of presidents from his own party and ideological purists on the right by deviating from Republican orthodoxy. Yet his voting record affirms his credentials as a common-sense conservative. And any fair assessment of his record will affirm his prescience over a wide array of difficult issues.

Campaign propaganda to the contrary, Sen. McCain has often opposed President Bush on both the domestic and foreign fronts. He has consistently urged the president to veto spending bills filled with “earmarks” that lacked sufficient legislative scrutiny. He has rightly opposed the folly of wasteful agricultural and ethanol subsidies. He correctly warned, two years ago, that insufficient regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac risked a colossal mortgage-industry meltdown.

And why is it, pray tell, everyone thinks OBAMA is going to do anything positive with the mortgage crisis when he is a part of the problem? I just do not get that one - such a shocking lack of logic involved there…

As to the war:

He was an early critic of the failure to send enough troops to Iraq to consolidate our initial victory in the 2003 invasion that ousted Saddam Hussein from power. Along with trusted Senate colleague and close friend Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Sen. McCain was an early and ardent advocate for a “surge” of U.S. troop levels in Iraq, an overdue move President Bush finally ordered in the spring of 2007.

At that time, prominent Democrats in Congress — including Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, now his party’s presidential nominee — predicted that such an increase in American forces would fail. A few months later, with the surge’s outcome still in doubt, most pundits decreed that Sen. McCain’s bid for the GOP presidential nomination already had failed. The Democrats were wrong about the surge. The pundits were wrong about the nomination.

I admit - I was one Democrat who was wrong about the surge. I honestly thought it was going to be a disaster. I acknowledge - I was wrong.

Unlike Obama, one cannot deny, McCain has character:

Even Sen. McCain’s detractors must acknowledge that he has shown remarkable backbone by bucking his party’s base on many controversial issues, including:

Illegal immigration: He recognizes it as a problem that demands comprehensive reform, not just a border fence.

Judicial appointments: Along with Sen. Graham, he helped forge a compromise that broke a senatorial stalemate blocking President Bush’s court nominees.

Man-made climate change: He recognizes it as a real threat that must be addressed.

Torture of terror suspects: He vigorously criticized the administration for condoning interrogation abuses that undermine our nation’s moral standing.

Such bold stands have given Sen. McCain considerable credibility as a powerful force for cross-party cooperation.

Now, this is where the Post and Courier pushes the meme about Obama. Honestly, how people can still push this BS is beyond me, but here it is:

We are impressed by Sen. Obama’s positive ability to inspire a broad range of Americans, and by his historic role as our nation’s first black major-party presidential nominee. But he falls far short of Sen. McCain on the decisive question of experience — an especially critical consideration in regard to foreign policy.

And though Sen. Obama promises to foster bipartisan accords, unlike Sen. McCain he has not taken on his party’s base. Sen. Obama chides Sen. McCain for frequently supporting President Bush. However, Sen. Obama has voted with his party’s leadership at an even higher rate. His 2007 voting record was deemed the most liberal in the Senate by the National Journal, which is not a right-wing publication.

Most of Sen. Obama’s positions fall well to the left of the national mainstream, including his push to provide “tax cuts” for many Americans who pay no income tax now. Sen. McCain’s prescription for the ailing economy includes tax relief, but it’s based on practical, free-market fundamentals rather than counterproductive attempts to “spread the wealth.”

Sen. McCain proposes reforming health care via private-sector incentives. Sen. Obama proposes public-sector mandates.

Sen. McCain favors free trade. Sen. Obama increasingly backs protectionism.

Sen. McCain strongly supports school choice. Sen. Obama, despite some lip service, does not.

Sen. McCain has long pushed for entitlement reform. Sen. Obama has not.

Sen. McCain would appoint constitutional constructionists to the federal bench. Sen. Obama would appoint liberal activists.

With strengthened Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate certain, a victory for Sen. Obama would assure a lopsided edge for liberal government.

Back in the day, say before 5/31/08, if someone said we were going to have a liberal government, I would have been ecstatic. But I have seen the light - at least in terms of how the Democrats really act. The way the Democratic leadership and the Democratic Party have treated women this way is simply abhorrent. There is nothing liberal about the way they have acted at all. And frankly, who the hell knows for what Obama really stands considering he has flip flopped on just about everything during this campaign? So, yeah - now, I don’t trust them to have that much power. No way in hell. The editors continue:

A victory for Sen. McCain would assure needed balance between a conservative president and a liberal Congress. More importantly, it would assure a steady, capable and brave hand to guide us through the looming crises sure to come.

As for concerns about Sen. McCain’s age (he turned 72 in August), he has kept a demanding campaign schedule and has routinely kept his lively 96-year-old mother nearby to remind voters that he comes from a family known for healthy longevity. Similar worries were expressed about Winston Churchill, nearly 77 when he began his final stint as British prime minister in 1951, and Ronald Reagan, 17 days shy of his 70th birthday when he became U.S. president in 1981. That’s awfully good septuagenarian company.

And despite misinformed assertions that Sen. McCain would too quickly choose military options, the former Navy fighter pilot knows far better than most that the horror of war should always be a last resort.

No kidding. I have tried to say this to people. Military people always choose war last because they KNOW what it is really like. Never mind that both he and his running mate have children in the theatre currently - he knows, far, far better than Obama possibly could.

Finally:

His reputation for courage long preceded his first run for office. He gallantly endured more than five years as a prisoner of war, including torture, after being shot down over Hanoi. He refused to accept early release after his communist captors discovered his father was the U.S. Pacific commander.

John McCain has demonstrated a strong commitment to principle in the political arena, too. His exemplary qualifications for the White House are clear.

I agree - he is far, far more qualified than Obama could dream of being, he has good character, a backbone, and truly loves this country, all things I cannot say about Obama. I agree with the Edistors of the Post and Courier. They are right - McCain is the clear choice on Tuesday.

My Friend,

John McCain

What a nice request. It is humble, and he does truly seem to love this country above all else - something I have NEVER seen or heard from Obama. McCain’s humility and integrity, along with his willingness to work across the aisle, make him a good choice, even though I do not agree with all of his policies. He is not Senator Clinton, but he is a far better choice, in my opinion, than Senator Obama. He does NOT need on the job training. He has already demonstrated that he makes prescient decisions on foreign policy and on economics. We would be in a different place today had the Senate heeded his call in 2006 about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He acknowledges that we must work to help heal the planet. He clearly has a higher regard for women than does Obama. All of the things you have heard before. Just read the letter, think about it, and vote your conscience.

We are facing the risk of a president so little traveled that he had to make a whirlwind tour of Europe this summer just to get a “postcard” feel for the continent, who did not visit our gravely injured soldiers in Germany because no photographers could accompany him, and who spent most of the time prepping for a lavish rally in Berlin that was nothing more than expensive theater:

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama paid a German company nearly $700,000 for staging, sound and lighting services at a time he delivered a speech this summer in which he declared himself a “citizen” of both the U.S. and the world… (Flopping Aces blog)

Given that the first year of a presidency is especially dangerous, American voters must ask if it is John McCain or Barack Obama who is best able to face frightening international crises that come out of the blue. Mike McConnell, National Intelligence Director, explains:

And … remember this … who do YOU want answering that phone?

You all remember Hillary’s “3 a.m.” ad that shattered the “rose-colored glasses” of many voters and led to the stark realization that she would be a steady force as our nation’s leader but that Barack Obama simply didn’t have the experience or qualifications. In three words, he isn’t ready.

Then think about this:

Today, U.S. Senator John McCain issued the following statement concerning Barack Obama’s hedging on foreign policy and Iran:

“Earlier today, when asked about efforts to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power, Senator Obama said he might apply tougher sanctions — ‘potentially.’

I have called for tougher sanctions against Iran for years. I have supported tougher sanctions during this campaign that Barack Obama opposed, and if elected, I would work to lead an international effort to put tougher sanctions in place — not potentially but actually.

Senator Obama last year opposed legislation with broad bipartisan support that called for tougher sanctions on Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps for its terrorist activities.

Senator Obama was also asked today about capturing Osama bin Laden — he said he would ‘try him, apply the death penalty to him where it is necessary.’ I do not know why Senator Obama would have any doubt that it is necessary. There is no one more deserving of execution than Osama bin Laden. If he survives capture, the death penalty would be necessary, just and appropriate.

Senator Obama continues to hedge his bets on national security issues showing his inexperience and weakness. Senator Obama’s comments demonstrate once again that America cannot afford untested leadership when facing the threats posed by Iran and Osama bin Laden.”

Here is what Barack Obama told Wolf Blitzer on CNN’s “Situation Room” yesterday, October 31, 2008:

CNN’S WOLF BLITZER: Senator McCain says he knows how to capture Bin Laden and he says I’ll get him, if he’s elected president. Do you know how to capture Bin Laden?

BARACK OBAMA: I’m reminded of — he said this during the debate. I think that night, maybe, Jon Stewart on Comedy Central said, you know, why have you been holding out on us over the last six years? The fact is, along with George Bush, John McCain championed the strategy that distracted us from capturing Bin Laden that focused on Iraq that had nothing to do with 9/11. And so clearly, Senator McCain doesn’t know how to capture Bin Laden because he was supportive of a huge strategic blunder when it came to accomplishing the task. I will focus on what Secretary Gates and others have indicated is our number one security threat, and that is Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. We will go after him. We will kill him or capture him, try him, apply the death penalty to him where it is necessary. That’s the threat we should have stayed focused on. That’s the threat I will focus on when I’m president.

BLITZER: Senator McCain says that if he’s elected president, Iran will not become a nuclear power. Can you make that same commitment?

OBAMA: Well, I’ve said I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. I think it would be a game-changer. It would not be acceptable. It would be a threat to our strongest ally in the region, Israel. But it would also potentially trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. And we have to both apply much tougher diplomacy and sanctions, potentially, if they do not move in a better direction. We have to give them some inducements to walk away from their nuclear program and we should never take a military option off the table.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

NOW PLEASE READ THIS AGAIN:

Senator Obama continues to hedge his bets on national security issues showing his inexperience and weakness.

THEN ASK YOURSELVES AGAIN:

Is it company he’s kept all these years — all those dinners, meetings, and phone calls for with Palestinian radical Rashid Khalidi, anti-American radicals Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, and his anti-American racist minister Jeremiah Wright who consorts with the racist, anti-Jewish Minister Louis Farrahan, and many other elite liberals who hate this country — that makes Senator Obama incapable of putting country first, incapable of putting the safety of the American people first, and incapable of being tough when it is essential to the nation’s security that we be tough?

There’s Obama’s list of close friends — Rashid Khalidi, Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, and Father Michael Pfleger.

Then there’s McCain’s list of close friends — including Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham. And those are two patriotic senators who are known for (1) putting country before party, and (2) working effectively with all sensible senators who can cross the aisle.

IS IT ANY WONDER THEN THAT YESTERDAY GOVERNOR ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER SAID:

“John McCain served longer in a POW camp than his opponent has in the United States Senate. … Ladies and gentlemen, I only play an action hero in my movies, but John McCain is a real action hero.”

“The man tested in crisis.”

I believe that that is who we all should vote for, don’t you?

Just when you had wished you had indeed heard the last of Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, it turns out they are publishing a new manifesto described in brief on Amazon.com.

What makes the book blurb - this one apparently not written by their long time, umm, colleague, co-education policy wonk, fellow intellectual and, yes, neighbor Barack Obama - worrisome is that it links what Ayers and Dohrn say is America’s continuing sin, racism and “white supremacy,” with their views on war. 

In other words just as Barack Obama moves to the White House, these two destructive figures out of the past are about to advocate an entire new world view for America built around their curious race-centric obsession. Presumably this will be an opportunity to peddle, one more time, their Third Worldist clap trap which mandates that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” 

This narrow and dangerous thinking is what led Ayers, Dohrn and others in their camp to embrace figures like Castro, Ortega, and Chavez even as they trample all over the civil rights of their citizens in order to maintain their authoritarian hold on power.  

[Editor's note: See Uppity Woman's October 28th article here, "RBO: Team Cuba” — Ayers, Dohrn, just “two political activists” from Obama’s neighborhood, visited Cuba in September 2008.]

Obama has a friend or associate that is questionable.

Video or articles surface of Obama thanking them, supporting them, writing a blurb for their book, organizing events for them, campaigning for them, campaigning with them, playing poker with them, serving on boards with them, buying homes with them, dining with them, praising them, using them to prove his christian faith, or hiring them.

Obama then denies their tight relationship - brushes the association off as *a guy in the ‘hood*, claims they are someone who doesn’t advise him, minimizes the actual number of times he attended church, says he can’t vet his vetters, or flat out lies.

Obama THEN completely denies any knowledge of who they really are, denies ever knowing who they were, what they said, what they did, how corrupt they were, any fraud they were up to, and what they were preaching.

People - this isn’t a coincidence. One or two nefarious associations can be examined and written off. But there is a looooooooong list of people that Obama is close to - whether they be family members, business partners, friends or co-workers who are either radicals, criminals, racist, or anti-American.

This list, compiled by The Daily Antikos, is great, but forgot a few people/organizations (that I added at the end):

Jeremiah Wright - Obama’s Pastor for 20 years. Obama did not distance himself until it was political.

Father Pflager - Speaks at Obama’s former Church (only after embarrassment) and Obama gave him money & here they are in 2000.

Bill Ayers - Terrorist. Member of the Weather Underground. Killed Americans. Launched Obama’s Political Career.

Tony Rezko - bought land and sold it to Obama at a discount. Oh yeah, and he is a convicted felon.

Raila Odinga - Defeated in his bid for the Kenyan Presidency. Led Supporters in a Violent Uprising. Obama Campaigned for him in 2006. (at tax payer expense)

Khalid Abdullah Tariq Al-Mansour - I can’t even get started. This is Obama’s Political Grand-father, and his intentions do not seem to be too honorable.

Franklin Raines - Cooked the Books at Fannie Mae. Obama hired him as an advisor on Housing and Urban Affairs.

Frank Marshall David - Communist Obama Mentor.

Emil Jones, Jr. - Ugh… Just Read It.

Rev James Meeks - Spiritual Mentor

Rashid Khalidi - PLO Terrorist.

Here are a few more:

Larry Walsh is the Will County (IL) County Executive, good buddy, political confidante, and frequent poker player with Barack Obama. He is currently being investigated by the FBI.

Kwame Kilpatrick, former mayor of Detroit, convicted felon, has been charged with 10 felonies including perjury, obstruction of justice and assaulting a public safety officer. He will be sentenced October 28th. In June, Kwame Kilpatrick gave Barack Obama his endorsement as a Democratic Party Superdelegate.

Gov. Blagojevich, who is under investigation.

Marilyn Katz, a former member of the ’60’s anti-war group SDS, led protestors against the police outside the Democratic Convention in 1968. Protestors threw nails in the street to impede the police and clashed with police on this occasion and others. Katz has said of her activities that she wanted the U.S. to become a socialist paradise. She is a close friend of Barack Obama. Katz is a member of Obama’s national finance committee.

James Johnson, Former Fannie Mae executive who was vetting candidates for Obama for his VP but had to resign. Johnson is drawing fire over his jumbo home loans from Countrywide Financial, a major actor in the subprime mortgage mess, that may have been below market rates.

Louis Farrakhan, leader of the NOI. Obama helped to organize his Million Man March in ‘95, and he is tight with Reverend Wright and Phleger.

Fannie Mae and Freddi Mac - Obama has recieved the most donations, second only to Dodd, from these companies, and also was thanked, in part with the Congressional Black Caucus, for *being like family* with Fannie and Freddi.

ACORN - Obama is the former Director of Illinois Project Vote, and they have been raided and charged for fraudulent voter registration practices. They are also linked to some of the above associations of Obama’s.

Michelle Obama. *First time in my adult life, I am proud of my country.* Nuff said.

How does someone hang out with that many people, who are, as I said, criminals, radicals, racists or just plain anti-American, and not share some of those characteristics?

And the best excuse Obama can ever come up with is *they aren’t the person I thought I knew* or *I never heard them say those things* or *I did not know they were a domestic terrorist when I was having my first fundraiser in their living room*.

Are we to believe that he truly didn’t know, that he is that uninformed, that naive, that, dare I say, stupid? Or is he just lying?

Why would someone who associates with all those people WANT to be President? And more importantly, why would anyone WANT him to be President?

I just don’t get it.

How are the markets doing? Where are you at on the bailout deal?

OPEN THREAD.